Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

How ONE vote can erase Second Amendment rights

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by Pro 2A, Oct 17, 2011.

  1. Pro 2A

    Pro 2A

    Aug 30, 2011
    From the Daily Caller:

    At a recent fundraiser for President Obama’s re-election campaign in Providence, Rhode Island, the first lady told her audience:
    “We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come … let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices … let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

    This was music to the ears of the small, affluent crowd of admirers who cheered and applauded. But to gun owners, Michelle Obama’s remarks should sound like a warning bell, alerting us to the danger ahead should Barack Obama win re-election and get the opportunity to alter the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

    When Americans flock to the polls in 13 months, we will not simply decide which direction our country should take over the next four years. Rather, we will decide whether or not our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms will survive over the next several decades.

    Currently, the Second Amendment clings to a 5-4 pro-freedom majority on the Supreme Court. Just one vote is all that stands between the America our Founding Fathers established and a radically different America that Barack Obama and his supporters envision.

    If you want to read something scary, take another look at the minority opinions in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s unconstitutional gun bans. In the Heller dissent, four justices concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our families, or our property. In McDonald, the same four justices argued that the 5-4 Heller decision should be reversed.

    If these four justices had just one more vote on their side, their opinion — that the Second Amendment should not exist in today’s modern society — would be the law of the land today. And assuredly, the anti-gun activist wing of the court knows how close they are to gaining the upper hand. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.

    Praying for the health of five justices is not a sound legal strategy for ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms survive the relentless legal assault that gun-ban groups are waging in courtrooms across America. We need a president who will nominate sound, originalist nominees to the high court — nominees who will preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution.

    If President Obama gets the opportunity to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court in his favor, we’re unlikely to see another pro-gun victory at the Court in our lifetime. Even worse, the 5-4 majorities in Heller and McDonald will be in serious jeopardy of being reversed, effectively eliminating the Second Amendment.

    Article here:
  2. Acujeff


    Jan 1, 2000
    Boston, MA
    We were fortunate that 5 Supreme Court Justices in McDonald vs Chicago confirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right to armed self defense and must be applied to all levels of government. And, in case you forgot, we were fortunate that Bush and a pro-Second Amendment US Senate Republican majority appointed Alito and Roberts as Justices to make that pro-Second Amendment majority and obtain that opinion.

    However, the minority opinion by the other four Justices was that the Second Amendment:
    - did not protect a private right of armed self-defense
    - does not apply to the states
    - does not apply to individuals outside of the militia context

    If there were five, instead of four, anti-Second Amendment Justices the RKBA would have been effectively written out of the Bill of Rights.

    It could still happen.

    Anti-Second Amendment Justice Ginsberg has stated that the majority opinions in this case are “grievously mistaken” and that minority opinions would be used to rewrite legal history and create a purely “collective right connected to the militia”.

    Obama and the Democratic majority Senate appointed anti-Second Amendment Justices Sotomayor and Kagan (replacing Stevens). All they need is one more like minded Justice to get a majority of five anti’s and implement their stated agenda through the courts.

    Still trust Obama and Congress are gun friendly?

    It would be in our best interests not only to elect a Republican President but also to work to create a pro-Second Amendment Senate in November that can block anymore anti-Second Amendment nominees. Sotomayor and Kagan pretended to be pro-Second Amendment so even the pro-Second Amendment Democrats could confirm them and support the anti-Second Amendment Democrat leadership.

    In the long run, if we want to protect the Second Amendment, we need to get a pro-Second Amendment Republican majority and leadership in the Senate.

  3. Pro 2A

    Pro 2A

    Aug 30, 2011
    I totally agree Acujeff!
  4. NEOH212

    NEOH212 Diesel Girl

    Mar 25, 2008
    North East Ohio
    People in this country need to get their heads out of their rear ends and get with the program.

    The Second Amendment is the Amendment that makes all the rest possible and we can't afford to loose it. The Government and everyone else that opposes it in any way seriously needs to understand the, "Shall not be infringed" part as it was written, not what they think or want to think it means. It means exactly what it says.

    What could happen if this guy gets re-elected scares me. Imagine what this country would be like if our laws went the way of the UK. :steamed:

    We need to stop this nonsense before it has a chance to go any farther. We are a free nation and the Government works for us. They need to remember this and obey the laws that they are bound to according the the United States Constitution.

    It seems these days that there are so many people that have a twisted view on the Constitution and especially the Bill of rights. Worse more, they take a communist standpoint on individual rights and make apologies for it. :steamed:

    We live in a free country dammit and we need to resist, reject and stand up against the tyrants that threaten our liberty and freedom.

    We need to vote these bastards out of office and elect people that recognize and and respect the Constitution for what it is, not what some Commie Liberal wants it to be.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011
  5. 3.slow


    Dec 20, 2010
    I wonder even if they completely outlawed assault weapons for civilian use, how would they even collect the firearms? Will they be sending police to the residence of registered weapons and confiscating illegal arms?

    We all see how bad things can get when weapons are taken from citizens, wouldn't people be fighting back and having shootouts with police etc?
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011
  6. NEOH212

    NEOH212 Diesel Girl

    Mar 25, 2008
    North East Ohio
    I hate to think about this scenario but it is something that we have to consider becoming a reality. I really don't think that there would be too many police officers that would obey a order to confiscate the firearms of the people. Sure there will be some, but I think that would be the minority. I remember reading a article in a police magazine a few years ago that said that the overwhelming majority of police officers polled would not obey a order to illegally confiscate firearms under the circumstances that are outlined here.

    I don't want a conflict nor do I ever want to think about having a shoot out with the Police, or anyone for that matter. If there ever is a mass confiscation of this sort, I could see the national guard or active duty military being used for such a effort. I know the Constitution forbids the military from doing such a thing but with the rogue administration that we have in office, it is a real possibility that I wouldn't put past them. If it ever did happen, whoever would try to do it would be committing a Illegal activity. If someone would try to confiscate my guns and I haven't done anything to warrant the confiscation (and I never would), I would deal with it accordingly, with up to and including deadly force if necessary.

    The only way I will be disarmed is over my dead body. I have always obeyed the law and I always will obey the law, I mind my own business and don't cause trouble. How dare anyone try to turn the law abiding citizenry into criminals because they own guns or certain types of guns! :steamed:

    The Second Amendment isn't just my right, it belongs to all of us as does the right to be free and live in a free nation. I sure know that if the time comes I will defend my rights accordingly as I would expect everyone else who values their rights would do the same as well.

    All one has to do is look back in history where guns were confiscated before and look at what happened soon there after. I don't want to live in a country where I can't be armed. Nothing good will come from it but a lot of bad can and will. The Second Amendment is the Amendment that makes the rest possible and allows for a free society. Our independence from the crown wasn't won by politics, debate, or diplomacy, we armed ourselves and shot the enemy and took what was ours and turned it into the greatest nation that has ever been. I sure hope it will be here, and free in another 20 years.

    (I won't hold my breath.)
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011
  7. Burleigh


    Oct 11, 2011
    Losing a pro-self defense justice is the thing that could harm civil rights the most of anything I can think of. I'm hopeing none of the good guys leave at least untill 2012.
  8. NEOH212

    NEOH212 Diesel Girl

    Mar 25, 2008
    North East Ohio
    Ditto. :wavey:
  9. Con43


    Feb 20, 2008
    High Desert

    I think you are dreaming if you believe this. I think they would have very little problem doing this if so ordered,especially since it would not effect them. To them it is just part of the job :whistling:.
  10. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    If “ANY” firearm or type of firearm is outlawed they do not need a door to door search. It is illegal to own so you can’t take it anywhere where someone might see it and report that you have it. In effect it's useless. Most LEO’s do support this type of action. California SKS Sporter (theft) buy back worked and was ruled to be states right to do.

    "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson.

    They have been trying to take it since the day it was written. It’s up to us to see they don’t.

    "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." [George Washington]

    Edit to add: New Orleans and at least one other LA. Parish, Katrina gun thefts by LEOs “only following orders". All did not participate but enough did to make it happen.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2011